Missing features, game breaking bugs and other concerns

What are you talking about? There are quite a few missing features that were promised during the kickstarter. I find this rather concerning that you think PA is pretty complete.

Here's just a few features from the Kickstarter that are missing:

• 12+ hour games (PA isn't stable enough for that yet)
• 40 person game
• Split interfaces (maybe PIP could be considered this, but not fully)
• Multiple windows
• Saving and sharing systems with the community (we have to use a mod for that)
• Multiple monitors
• Offline play
• LAN play
• Host out own servers
• Asteroid smash tsunamies
• Submarines
• Gas giants (Uber is hinting that they're being worked on and will likely be in at 1.0, but we don't have them yet)
• Co-op local play for GW
• Multiplayer GW
• Clan wars GW
• GW "Dynamic story system that logs your fight and generates exciting counter attacks and special missions"
• Geothermal Plants and liquid metal processing mines
• Re-activatable metal planets
• Asteroid belts

And I have sources in the Kickstarter for every single one of these.

PA is missing quite a few features.

Please don't tell me you legitimately think nothing is missing from PA and you have delivered on your Kickstarter promises.

Why not?
I'm sorry, but at this point it really feels like naval is just an orphaned feature at this point. It's the unit type that's seen the least amount of changes, and is overall damn near unplayable.
I mean for god's sake, the wreckage stayed.
The only unit type that was truly made awful by wreckage, keeps wreckage. Why? Where is the sense in that?

I was trying to keep the thread within the boundary of *stuff we can discuss without Uber giving us weird stares, like 'Wait. They want naval? What?'*

Finally. Brian shows up to the party with a bucket full of HEY UBER! I FOUND YOUR LOST STUFF!

He did the research so I didn't have to! AWESOME.

this. so much freakin this.

Let 'em stare, they can attempt to stare us into a pile of ashes if they feel like it.

Naval is Orphaned. how could it even be considered unimportant??? it's the freaking FIRST tier stretch goal on the kicstarter we got to five tiers, and the fith tier, we already have : orchestral score.

I consider naval play to be the most interesting part of an RTS. So if they believe noone cares, there you go.

It's true, how long since they don't update naval?

I was thinking they will do a big pass on it just like they did orbital and air. And are now trying to do to bots.
But yeah, the lack of communication on the subject is worrying.

I think the should have balance the navy before the bots cause now that some of them are amphibious (and slammers chew trough ships) there is no more incentive to go naval.

It would be nice if they just confirmed they would do a pass on it.

The biggest problem is Ubers lack of transparency. I thought the whole point of the Kickstarter was to have the players working closely with the developers to develop the game that the players wanted. Currently Uber keep everything so close to their chest, due to their fear of forum backlash from unfulfilled promises, but currently we have forum backlash from lack of communication. And the only communication we have had in this thread is from @BradNicholson who believes the game is pretty much completed. Yes the games is already awesome, I love it, but it's like having a Ferrari with a big dent in the side. You'd be beyond stoked to have the Ferrari, but you would prefer it if the dent was fixed wouldn't you? Maybe that's just wanting too much?

I compiled that list over on the "Managing Expectations" thread.

Btw. I could probably find more if I dug further.

This list is just compiled after... 5 minutes of digging.

Also, everything on that list is just from the kickstarter. No forum or reddit promises are included in that list.

Having "transparency" doesn't mean "handing the entire development plan of the game to the community on a plate".

Most of us aren't games developers. Heck, most of us aren't software developers. We aren't the experts making the game. Are you a Ferrari engineer? If you were given a Ferrari with some kind of defect, how would you fix it?

Then there's the problem of identifying whether or not the dent is actually a dent. Maybe what you think is a dent, another player sees as the colour blue. And maybe the third player sees the Ferrari as red all over, with no real work required.

There is "backlash" because people don't understand how software development works. There is "backlash" because people are unhappy that a team of games developers aren't specifically catering every single aspect of Planetary Annihilation to the peoples' specific, individual needs. There is constructive criticism aplenty, and from what I've seen of this forum Uber have taken a considerable amount of it on board.

Complaining that you aren't getting enough transparency isn't constructive. You get plenty of transparency. I volunteer with two developers I consider very open, and Uber have so far been more communicative than either of these two developers have, considering the size of all three. I love all three companies, and it's not a slight on them that they're not as good as Uber. They're later on in their lifecycle, they've made more games, etc. Both have highly "excitable" and sometimes downright abusive communities, which in turn have caused a downturn in public-facing communication.

Don't be like that. Don't act like you're entitled to as much transparency as you can get your hands on. Appreciate what is given, and realise that for a bunch of developers they've given us a lot. That's not saying don't criticise them, but do it constructively. Don't surmise that just because you have issues with the game, that Uber automatically need to hand their designs to you on a plate.

There's this big wide gap between us talking about ideas and what we'd like to do versus "confirmed features." The entire studio often looks at those lists with a mix of awe and puzzlement. We discussed our vision, and we are delivering on that.

I'm closing this thread, too, since it's a rehash of a rehash of a rehash. But! Wanted to share this post from another thread in closing: